tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 23 05:46:03 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: SanID (number)
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: SanID (number)
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:40:41 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp09.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1208954442; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=3xIvVjsFQU3Qxz/5pfy3ytswBoo=; b=JRkbjtnnrKeHPLw/vC+efAOflm27nByqMClTxOiz9L7EL6CRHmJpYC6QCnnFeZHa vZDWRhmU6dWCtuEYEA0qpbBQLPnRtVnDKXOKKzqSZ5WIbpWVrJPY/Xn5WrwAEzLy;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
Several people have been quoting this and it seems really strange to
talk about centuries vs. years when the difference I would have
otherwise interpreted would have been the difference between a time
stamp and a time period. I would have thought that {cha' vatlh DIS
ret} would mean "the time period encompassing the past 200 years",
since {ret} is defined as "time period ago (past)". I'm talking about
200 time periods of one year in the past each. Meanwhile {cha' vatlh
ben} would be a moment in time of undetermined length which happened
200 years ago, since {ben} means "years ago / years old". I'm talking
about one moment 200 years ago.
{ret} is a length of time, with today marking its end. {ben} is a
point in time measured back from today. That's what the glosses look
like to me, anyway.
jav ben jISaw. jav ret be'nal vIghajtaH.
Actually, these could be combined. cha' ben wa'maH loS ret Duj
vIghajtaH. That's a very concise way of saying that I acquired a ship
sixteen years ago and ceased owning it two years ago. Literally, "Two
years ago, I owned a ship for fourteen years." Since {ret} measures
time backwards, the time stamp preceding it marks the end of the time
period described by {ret}.
If that interpretation is not valid, then we've just lost a very
valuable means of very efficient expression relating to time stamps
and time spans.
Doq
On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/22/2008 09:36:34 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> Are you thinking of the phrases {vatlh DIS poH}
>> and {netlh DIS poH} mentioned in HQ 8.3:
>>
>> With longer time periods, such as a century ({vatlh DIS poH}), or a
>> period of 10,000 years (myriad, perhaps) ({netlh DIS poH}), the
>> words
>> {ret} or {pIq} may be used in place of {poH}, e.g., {cha' vatlh
>> DIS poH}
>> "two centuries", but {cha' vatlh DIS ret} "two centuries ago". The
>> phrase {cha' vatlh ben} would mean "200 years ago". The choice of
>> construction depends on what is being emphasized: in this case, the
>> total number of centuries (two) or the total number of years (200).
>>
>> (Is {SaD DIS poH} "millennium" also mentioned in that HolQeD
>> article? It's
>> not in my notes.)
>>
>
> Your copy of the text of HQ 8.3, p. 3, is incomplete, and lacks
> exactly the
> part about millennium:
>
> With longer time periods, such
> as a century ({vatlh DIS poH}),
> millennium ({SaD DIS poH}), or a
> period of 10,000 years ("myriad,"
> perhaps) ({netlh DIS poH}), the words
> {ret} or {pIq} may be used in place of
> {poH}, e.g., {cha' vatlh DIS poH} _two
> centuries_ , but {cha' vatlh DIS ret} _two
> centuries ago_. The phrase {cha' vatlh
> ben} would mean "200 years ago."
> The choice of construction depends
> (p.4)
> on what is being emphasized: in this
> case, the total number of centuries
> (two) or the total number of years
> (200).
>
> lay'tel SIvten </HTML>
>
>
>